Deadline.com and its parent company MMC is embarking on an intensified legal campaign to protect its original content. I began Deadline Hollywood Daily exactly 5 years ago in March and have seen it grow as a very successful and widely respected website of breaking news and analysis and commentary about the entertainment industry. I will not, and can not, allow anyone to rip off Team Deadline’s exclusive coverage. It often can take weeks of working our deep sources to report and write our posts. And yet a proliferating number of blogs and websites without the journalism credentials we have often post our original content 5- or 10-minutes after us without credit and/or linkback and without individually reporting the articles themselves. And merely calling a studio or network and saying, “Is this correct?”, then copying Deadline’s post often word-for-word and slapping a different byline on it, does not constitute reporting in my journalism playbook. Nor should it for you readers.

In 2010, Deadline’s parent company MMC brought separate lawsuits in Federal Court against the owners and operators of DeadlineHollyweird.com and BoxOfficeWorld.com. Both resulted in the owners of those respective websites effectively closing up shop immediately after we filed suit. While those websites still technically exist on paper, they have been completely stripped of all content. We are currently in the process of resolving those lawsuits in a very favorable manner. In particular, the settlement in the Deadline Hollyweird lawsuit won by MMC’s outside counsel Bryan Freedman of the Century City law firm of Freedman & Taitelman will result in, among other things, the defendant transferring the entire domain DeadlineHollyweird.com to MMC.

Now we embark on our next phase of copyright protection. TheWrap.com has had many wholesale staff turnovers since it began in January 2009 and at present is operating with just a handful of reporters — apparently the least amount in its brief history. As one of TheWrap’s reporters emailed to a Deadline staffer expressing his frustration trying to compete with us, “I spend my days following and getting scooped by you.” But that is no excuse for what keeps happening and is even increasing as outlined in this letter which attorney Freedman just sent to TheWrap’s editor-in-chief Sharon Waxman, COO Mark Davis, and board directors Ben Choi (a principal at Maveron which initially funded TheWrap) and Charles Koontz (a media entrepreneur):

This firm represents Mail.com Media Corporation (“MMC”), the owner of the website www.deadline.com (“Deadline.com”). It is our understanding that the Wrap News, Inc. (“WNI”) owns and operates http://www.thewrap.com (“TheWrap.com”). I am contacting you because it has become apparent that TheWrap.com and its employees have engaged in a continuous pattern of misappropriating content from Deadline.com, publishing that information on TheWrap.com, passing off that information as its own, and doing so without compensating or even crediting Deadline.com. In many instances, TheWrap.com’s misappropriation involves the wholesale copying of substantial portions of articles posted on Deadline.com. While I want to inform you that MMC and my office intend to closely monitor TheWrap.com for any continued infringement, I also want to stress the need for WNI to implement internal policies and procedures that will discourage future infringement by TheWrap.com, and minimize WNI’s exposure to copyright infringement or “hot news” misappropriation liability.

MMC is concerned that TheWrap.com’s infringement on and theft of Deadline.com content is not an isolated incident. Rather, TheWrap.com’s copying of Deadline.com content, which has been going on for some time now, is only getting worse and is apparently becoming an institutionalized practice. As a result, both MMC and my office intend to make a concerted effort to monitor the TheWrap.com in order to identify and document any infringement of Deadline.com content that occurs on a going forward basis in case formal legal action becomes necessary. Rest assured, nothing will fly under our radar.

If TheWrap.com’s infringement continues, MMC intends to vigorously protect its intellectual property rights. As you probably are aware, the unauthorized copying and distribution via the internet of even portions of Deadline.com content, without the express permission of MMC, constitutes copyright infringement in violation of Title 17 U.S. Code, Section 106(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976. Such infringement subjects WNI to damages and injunctive relief. Moreover, based on what is undoubtedly willful infringement of MMC’s rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., WNI could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 for each act of infringement as set forth in Section 504(c)(2), as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

Even when TheWrap.com does not copy Deadline.com’s content verbatim, WNI’s misuse of Deadline.com’s exclusive and breaking stories exposes WNI to liability under California’s “Hot News” misappropriation laws. Like many other jurisdictions, California recognizes the tort of “Hot News” misappropriation. See Balboa Ins. Co. v. Trans Global Equities, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1327, 1342 (1990); X17 v. Lavandeira, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2007). A defendant will be liable under this theory if: (i) the plaintiff generates or collects information at some cost or expense; (ii) the value of the information is highly time-sensitive; (iii) the defendant’s use of information constitutes free-riding on the plaintiff’s costly efforts to generate or collect it; (iv) the defendant’s use of the information is in direct competition with a product or service offered by the plaintiff; (v) the ability of the other party to free-ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened. National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 852 (2d Cir. 1997); Lavandeira, 563 F. Supp. 2d at 1105, 1108-1109; International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, (1918). As TheWrap.com’s sources clearly are not as robust as those of Deadline.com, TheWrap.com attempts to compete with Deadline by free-riding off of Deadline.com’s exclusive information and breaking news. This is underscored by the fact that TheWrap.com frequently posts articles mimicking Deadline.com’s exclusive content shortly after dealine.com breaks such news.

The obvious problem with TheWrap.com’s institutionalized content theft is highlighted by Sharon Waxman’s sentiments towards such practices. Last year, Ms. Waxman voiced her frustration towards the alleged theft of TheWrap.com’s content: “Newser’s conduct violates The Wrap’s rights because: (1) The Wrap generates and gathers time-sensitive information at a cost, including, without limitation, original stories ferreted out and reported by The Wrap’s full-time employees and paid contributors; (2) Newser free-rides on The Wrap’s sweat of the brow by publishing summaries of these stories without affording The Wrap appropriate credit and a prominent link; and (3) Newser is in direct competition with The Wrap. Thus, Newser’s conduct, in addition to amounting to garden variety plagiarism, constitutes unfair competition and violates certain deceptive trade practices statutes.” MMC agrees with Ms. Waxman. Something must be done about these practices.

MMC demands that WNI and TheWrap.com immediately cease the continued publication, use and distribution of the copied and misappropriated content from Deadline.com, and that WNI and TheWrap.com desist from this or any other infringement of MMC’s rights in the future. Unfortunately, it does not appear that WNI has executed policy and procedure necessary to curtail infringement. In fact, WNI’s lack of oversight of TheWrap.com’s staff and contributors seems only promote continued infringement. While we recognize that WNI is faced with the challenge of constant staff turnover, we strongly recommend that WNI take this problem seriously, investigate TheWrap.com’s journalistic practices, and establish guidelines, checks and balances that will hopefully prevent, not encourage, future infringement. If increased oversight is not successful, a more aggressive strategy may become necessary. We sincerely hope that WNI is capable of regulating TheWrap.com’s use of content so as to avoid MMC’s need to take more formal remedial steps.

This letter is not intended to set forth MMC’s entire position regarding this matter. The foregoing, therefore, does not constitute an election or waiver of rights. MMC reserves all of its rights and remedies against WNI.

64 Comments

You’ll never win this. The precedent has been set by the scraping queen Ariana Huffington.

cookmeyer1970 • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Huffington Post always links up to the original site responsible for the content.

sd • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Drudge was doing the same as HuffPo looong before HuffPo was around.

Dana California • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

I wouldn’t even touch that trash “The Wrap”. I’m Deadline til the death.

curious • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Are you sending a similar letter to Perez Hilton? He rips off this site almost every day.

Jason • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

SERIOUSLY
i dont think perez has touched his website in a year
he must have some minions who copy and paste everything

Marc Klein • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Good for you Nikki. I hope you guys win. Wish you luck with it.

Krystal • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Why stop at The Wrap? Entertainment Weekly and E!Online and The Huffington Post have been doing the same thing too. It’s time for Deadline to get the big bucks!

Amber • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

I don’t need The Wrap… I have Deadline. Staying faithful to your site, Nikki.

Dan • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Bless your heart, guys. I never heard of TheWrap.com and now that I went over, it’s laughable how blatant the ripping off seems. Seems like it’s open and shut.

intwouble • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

A lot of websites, including very credible news sites, have paragraph form word for word stories from other sources but as long as it is linked to the originators site it’s legal, is that correct? Or am I wrong?
Not saying that is what THE WRAP is doing, just that reading this lawsuit has me wondering the legalities of this.

Paul • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Deadline Hollywood is, hands down, the best entertainment biz source-free or paid.
Yea, I’d fight like hell to keep my intellectual property mine.
Nikke, you’ve made this site my #1 entertainment site.
Plus, the reporters you’ve added over the last few years-TV, New York, Hollywood-have made your site the most in-depth and informative source for this kind of news.
Your recent interviews with Oscar moguls, for example, gives us a rare insight into the real movers & shakers of Hollywood.

And, no, I’m not your PR rep/agent, nor do I have ANY connection with your website or staff.
I’m just grateful for such abundant, up-to-date, straight forward reportage-that’s free for the asking!

welly • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

You may not be a PR rep or agent, Paul, but you’re one hell of an ass-kisser.

Rory • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Oh shit! It’s on now!

Thomas • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

About time. This is a problem for a lot of sites. Why stop with The Wrap? In about 2 minutes most readers could list about 20 sites that are nothing more than content thieves. It’s one thing to print a sentence and include a link to read the rest of the story on Deadline. Far too many sites are just cutting and pasting articles from Deadline and others and at the bottom including a link. Why click the link when you’ve already read the whole story?

Rock on!

HosniMubarak • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

You go girl! Nothin that bugs me more than dissemination of information. Good luck with your lawsuit.

–Hosni

Anonymous • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Nikki you are right to go after Sharon Waxman but why did you have to threaten Deadline Hollyweird? It was satire and parody protected by the First Amendment. Where is your sense of humor?

KW • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

oh Nikki please. Tell me this is a joke.

Journalists routinely report “so and so is now reporting” so and so. That’s how Al Gore “won” the 2000 election. As long as The Wrap is crediting/sourcing deadline they are well within their rights to do.

Viewers and readers can make the determination of who they want to read; if all they’re getting at Wrap is “deadline is reporting” this and that, they’ll go to deadline. Give your readership credit. If they’re reading the Wrap it’s because they’re getting something out of the coverage. Let the marketplace work. Competition is good for readers.

Secondly, this is what you call airing dirty laundry in public. I don’t really understand the point of airing this out. I go to both Wrap and Deadline and enjoy having the choice to do so. Keep the gory details of your disputes behind closed doors.

Jay Floyd • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

You know the snark, “Hollywood is High School with money?”

I only question the money part at this point.

Gotonemo • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

The post makes the point that TheWrap is not crediting Deadline.

another writer • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

@KW: The idea is you’re supposed to advance the story. You can write, “As originally reported on Deadline, Charlie Sheen was seen with an expensive hooker,” but, if you’re actually being a journalist and not a stenographer, you should have new information to add, “Sheen’s publicist told The Wrap the woman is actually Sheen’s Pilates coach.” “EW has learned that the woman The Wrap was told is a Pilates coach is in fact a highly paid call girl, as originally reported by Deadline.”

Merely repeating, even if attributing, isn’t reporting at all. And often, as Nikki’s lawsuit rightly argues, it can exceed fair use and extend to copyright violation. Fair Use is determined, in part, by the length of the original content. Quote three lines of Hamlet, you’re fine. Quote three lines of a haiku and you’ve just violated the poet’s copyright. Competition is good. Plagiarism under the guise of attribution is not.

As far as the marketplace is concerned, check out trademark and patent law. No, you’re not allowed to bring out a nearly identical product and wait for the marketplace to sort things out. The place it’ll get sorted out is in court, and you’ll most likely lose.

As for airing dirty laundry in public, it’s called transparency. That *is* what reporting is about.

Slammadingdong • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Where is the like button?

WGAmember • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Ditto!

Anita Busch • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

When Sharon Waxman was at The Washington Post and wrote about the Anthony Pellicano case, she reported inaccurate information about where I stayed after my life was threatened. When asked why she wrote that, she told both me AND one of my editors at the L.A. Times that she had “lifted it” from the story in the free weekly New Times.

Bruce Garfield • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Go girl go. I have been primarily in the music end of the business and your work provides me with great news and a wonderful prospective as I prepare to cross into film and TV. Thanks… Bruce

Matthew • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Dear Nikki,

you forgot “Exclusive”, “Scoop”, “Breaking” or any other sensationalist keywords you are using here.

best,
Matthew

Jordan • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

TOLDJA!!!

Matthew • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

I LOVE DEADLINE HEART HEART!111

Gay and LOVing it! • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Love your scoops, hope you win!

moi • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

It is strange that you go after these smaller sites but won’t touch the bigger players who pretty much do the same thing like EW, EOnline and their ilk and the sad truth is you would get crushed if you did and would get killed with the legal fees.

Nice publicity stunt but until you go after the big players its only news to the minions who post stuff like “you go girl” and “Nikki I love you”.

Henry • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

Nikki,

There’s a shitty little online rag called Gawker.com that’s worse than the Wrap when it comes to ripping you off. Yes, the Wrap is guilty too, but Gawker “reporters” don’t seem to have an original thought in their hacky little heads.

I guess when you’re no. 1 in this day and age you’re gonna be ripped off. but that doesn’t mean you sit idly by and take it. How many of those telling you to just let this go are writers? And if they are writers, how many of those would just stand by if someone borrowed their words? I’ll tell you how many – zero.

Anthony • on Feb 23, 2011 5:13 pm

I visit both Deadline and Gawker, and while Deadline easily has far more original content, Gawker properly cites/attributes Deadline on all the stories it uses for information.